Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US Relinquishes Control of Internet
Guardian, UK ^ | September 30, 2009 | Bobbie Johnson

Posted on 10/02/2009 6:51:07 PM PDT by NorwegianViking

After complaints about American dominance of the internet and growing disquiet in some parts of the world, Washington has said it will relinquish some control over the way the network is run and allow foreign governments more of a say in the future of the system. Icann – the official body that ultimately controls the development of the internet thanks to its oversight of web addresses such as .com, .net and .org – said today that it was ending its agreement with the US government. The deal, part of a contract negotiated with the US department of commerce, effectively pushes California-based Icann towards a new status as an international body with greater representation from companies and governments around the globe. Icann had previously been operating under the auspices of the American government, which had control of the net thanks to its initial role in developing the underlying technologies used for connecting computers together. But the fresh focus will give other countries a more prominent role in determining what takes place online, and even the way in which it happens – opening the door for a virtual United Nations, where many officials gather to discuss potential changes to the internet. Icann chief Rod Beckstrom, a former Silicon Valley entrepreneur and Washington insider who took over running the organisation in July, said there had been legitimate concerns that some countries were developing alternative internets as a way of routing around American control. "It's rumoured that there are multiple experiments going on with countries forking the internet, various countries have discussed this," he said. "...He added that the changes would prove powerful when combined with upcoming plans to allow web users to use addresses with names in Chinese, Arabic or other alphabets other than Latin...

(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Breaking News
KEYWORDS: agenda; bho44; globalism; icann; internet; siliconvalley; third100days
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-172 next last
Washington has said it will relinqush some control over the way the network is run and allow foreign governments more of a say in the future of the system.----I would like to know what Washington is giving up.
1 posted on 10/02/2009 6:51:08 PM PDT by NorwegianViking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NorwegianViking

—————I would like to know what Washington is giving up. ——————

Answer:

Freerepublic.com


2 posted on 10/02/2009 6:52:23 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing (MSM bias is dead. They are no longer "biased", they are complicit. The complicit progressive media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NorwegianViking

Everything.

Get with the program bub!


3 posted on 10/02/2009 6:52:53 PM PDT by sauropod (People who do things are people that get things done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

I’m trying.


4 posted on 10/02/2009 6:58:14 PM PDT by NorwegianViking (Organizing for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NorwegianViking

What we are gaining is: Chinese communist, Canadian and European socialist speech restrictions. Not to mention the speech restrictions of our Muslim brothern in the world.

This is going to be TERRIBLE for freedom but right up the “Progressive’s” ally.


5 posted on 10/02/2009 7:00:12 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

Would you be more specific?
What are the ramifications of this?


6 posted on 10/02/2009 7:01:10 PM PDT by Marty62 (former Marty60)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NorwegianViking

Paragraphs are your friend.....


7 posted on 10/02/2009 7:02:38 PM PDT by GQuagmire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NorwegianViking

jeez why dont we give away our first born


8 posted on 10/02/2009 7:03:42 PM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NorwegianViking

While the Internet should never be under the control of ANY loser government(s), free speech was probably LEAST threatened when it was under US control. Now, the political floodgates are OPENED!


9 posted on 10/02/2009 7:05:06 PM PDT by 2harddrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NorwegianViking

All your innernets are belong to us.


10 posted on 10/02/2009 7:07:29 PM PDT by ozark hilljilly (Ignore us at your peril.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NorwegianViking
This is all about the UN getting control of the Internet. World taxes is the net result along with censorship.
11 posted on 10/02/2009 7:08:23 PM PDT by JoSixChip (The only thing broken in this country is the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dalebert

The libs are working on that


12 posted on 10/02/2009 7:08:56 PM PDT by alice_in_bubbaland (Markets and Marxists Don't Mix! Audit the FED NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NorwegianViking
But the fresh focus will give other countries a more prominent role in determining what takes place online, and even the way in which it happens – opening the door for a virtual United Nations, where many officials gather to discuss potential changes to the internet.

Virtual UN dictating the Internet. Great.
13 posted on 10/02/2009 7:08:56 PM PDT by allmost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NorwegianViking
Can obumber do this on his own without the congress?
14 posted on 10/02/2009 7:10:23 PM PDT by JoSixChip (The only thing broken in this country is the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2harddrive

What, exactly, is the upside of this appararently idiotic decision? Were the US taxpayers handsomely reimbursed for developing this innovation? Will America benefit in any substantial way from this change? Why was it done with virtually no fanfare or public input. If not we, the people who funded the development of the internet, then exactly who benefits and why?


15 posted on 10/02/2009 7:11:49 PM PDT by mathurine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dalebert

Good Grief...don’t give them any ideas.


16 posted on 10/02/2009 7:12:26 PM PDT by Marty62 (former Marty60)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NorwegianViking

Why not? Democrat presidunces have pissed away everything else that was good and important. Panama Canal, Iran, great society, now health care and the internet.


17 posted on 10/02/2009 7:14:01 PM PDT by Freeper Fanatic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NorwegianViking

The inventor (Algore) is going to be pi$$ed.


18 posted on 10/02/2009 7:17:41 PM PDT by elkfersupper (Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NorwegianViking

A far more intelligent solution is for an international conglomerate to form a true alternative to the Internet, that works exclusively by uncensored satellite transceivers. Up links and down links would be carefully controlled so that no government involvement is permitted.

Likely it would piggyback on the Internet as well, but as a means to leech, not upload. This means that the non-data window dressing of the system can be handled by the Internet, with only the restricted information being handled by the satellites.

For example, every part of the Free Republic that was not text would be transmitted on the Internet, and the Satellite would do only the text, and your computer would put the two together.

So all any snoop would see would be the blank FR home page, unless they could tap in to and decrypt the encrypted satellite down link.

As a controlled system, there would be no advertisement or spam, hacking, censorship or surveillance.

Since most of the Internet is “ordinary”, that is where users would spend most of their time. But any time they wanted to discuss sensitive things that others would interfere with, they activate the down link.


19 posted on 10/02/2009 7:18:56 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freeper Fanatic

And did our fawning MSM finally cover themselves with glory just this once by reporting on this story? Methinks they knew about this and liked it, because it may offer a way to stifle the free flow of information as it has evolved these last few years.


20 posted on 10/02/2009 7:20:22 PM PDT by mathurine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NorwegianViking
Thank you National Socialists.

But the fresh focus will give other countries a more prominent role in determining what takes place online, and even the way in which it happens – opening the door for a virtual United Nations, where many officials gather to discuss potential changes to the internet.

Welcome to the Balkanization of the Internet. Where freedom is never a good thing, capitalism sucks, and tinpot dictators are given the same voice as freedom-loving democracies.

21 posted on 10/02/2009 7:20:48 PM PDT by VeniVidiVici (Hey Obama. Where is Osama Bin Laden?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GQuagmire

Sorry, I will try to be more careful. I do not post very often and I thought the paragraphs in the original news article would carry through here. I’ll be sure to double check.
Thanks.


22 posted on 10/02/2009 7:21:13 PM PDT by NorwegianViking (Organizing for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NorwegianViking
He added that the changes would prove powerful when combined with upcoming plans to allow web users to use addresses with names in Chinese, Arabic or other alphabets other than Latin...

Why? Let them build their own internet.

23 posted on 10/02/2009 7:22:17 PM PDT by VeniVidiVici (Hey Obama. Where is Osama Bin Laden?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mathurine

It is ANOTHER surrender of American dominance and de facto sovereignty to the Muzzie third world. THANKS, Hussein Obama.


24 posted on 10/02/2009 7:25:29 PM PDT by 2harddrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NorwegianViking

No problem. The title of the article and no paragraphs made the post look like zot material.


25 posted on 10/02/2009 7:28:58 PM PDT by GQuagmire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

It is an ill wind that blows no one any good. If the US doesn’t have control, they can’t shut it down. It makes it much less likely that any one country can shut it down.


26 posted on 10/02/2009 7:29:18 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (The Second Amendment. Don't MAKE me use it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NorwegianViking
multiple experiments going on with countries forking up the internet
27 posted on 10/02/2009 7:35:23 PM PDT by SouthTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Interesting!!!


28 posted on 10/02/2009 7:39:53 PM PDT by Marty62 (former Marty60)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NorwegianViking
Best of both worlds for Washington elites political speech has to be controlled so it conforms to International standards and the U S government gets plausible deniability. Hey we don't control the Internet you want to use it then you have to follow International standards!
29 posted on 10/02/2009 7:45:08 PM PDT by bonehead4freedom (I will vote Republican when they give me something to vote for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NorwegianViking
and America takes another one in the........

30 posted on 10/02/2009 7:48:28 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist *DTOM* -ww- I AM JIM THOMPSON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chode

OUCH!!! I just hate it when that happens and it has been happening all too many times lately! Thanks for the graphic.


31 posted on 10/02/2009 7:52:34 PM PDT by NorwegianViking (Organizing for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: NorwegianViking

controling the internet was very “arrogant” of us. I’m sure the UN will do a much better job than ICAAN has. /s


32 posted on 10/02/2009 7:55:20 PM PDT by Proud_USA_Republican ("The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NorwegianViking
Great. We invent it at taxpayer expense. The world (especially the communist and muslim world that never invents anything) wants it and begins whining because we won't give it to them. Obama comes along and hands it (and our 1st amendment rights) over to them on a silver platter.

The greatest tool ever invented that allows, at least in any meaningful way, average Americans to really exercise their free speech rights has just been handed over to the tyrants and thugs at the UN.

33 posted on 10/02/2009 7:56:36 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NorwegianViking

This has the potential to affect US trademarks. That’s a big deal.

It won’t hurt multi-national conglomerates, but it may hurt Us mid size and small businesses who don’t have the same global business structure or legal resources at their disposal.


34 posted on 10/02/2009 7:59:19 PM PDT by khnyny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

Ping


35 posted on 10/02/2009 8:00:51 PM PDT by Fiddlstix (Warning! This Is A Subliminal Tagline! Read it at your own risk!(Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NorwegianViking

surrender in all quarters.

How is it that something created by the US Department of Defense can succumb to foreign control.

BHO is POS.


36 posted on 10/02/2009 8:06:49 PM PDT by BlackjackPershing (?The patriot's blood is the seed of Freedom's tree? - Thomas Campbell (Scottish poet))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip
This is all about the UN getting control of the Internet. World taxes is the net result along with censorship.

To which I'd add: The internet has been damaging the established state-run media organs... can't have that. It fosters freedom, too - totally unacceptable. You can see why some foreign governments (and now, sadly, ours too) want to choke it into submission.

A number of people here were recently discussing a revival of a dial-up BBS network. I'd say this just adds to the reasons why an alternate communications network is a serious need - and probably more urgent than we think.

37 posted on 10/02/2009 8:07:28 PM PDT by Charles Martel (NRA Lifetime Member since 1984; TSRA rookie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NorwegianViking

Carter gave away the Panama Canal, now completely controlled by....China.

Hussein gives away control of the internet. Care to guess what open minded advocates of free speech will be running the show in 10 years?

Truthfully, I don’t think the US will exist as a genuine sovereign nation in 10 years, anyway. On paper, yes. In reality, no.

Remember, the USSR had a nice looking Constitution, too....on paper.


38 posted on 10/02/2009 8:07:41 PM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s........you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NorwegianViking

This article is two days old and from the UK. It’s strange that this is receiving no coverage in the US, apparently no mention on talk radio, or even the main internet sites, AFAIK. Nations already block sites and put restrictions on the internet. Though some Americans would doubtless love to see it, I can’t imagine Americans allowing our free speech on the internet to be diluted or determined by an international body.

This move has been discussed before, and received some spotty coverage in the past. I don’t think many know just what this means.


39 posted on 10/02/2009 8:08:53 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: khnyny
This has the potential to affect US trademarks. That’s a big deal. It won’t hurt multi-national conglomerates, but it may hurt Us mid size and small businesses who don’t have the same global business structure or legal resources at their disposal. This is horrible. Thanks for your insight into this latest Obama travesty. I feel like I have been raped by the government.
40 posted on 10/02/2009 8:09:27 PM PDT by NorwegianViking (Organizing for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Will88

I thought twice about posting this simply because I had not seen or heard about it either. I saw it on Drudge tonight and was very curious, so I clicked on the “Guardian UK” site. I listen to FOX almost constantly, so I would not know how the “fringe” media is reporting it, but tonight was the first that I saw of the report. Has anyone else heard or seen anything else?


41 posted on 10/02/2009 8:15:18 PM PDT by NorwegianViking (Organizing for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; bigheadfred; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; ...
has said it will relinquish some control over the way the network is run and allow foreign governments more of a say in the future of the system

42 posted on 10/02/2009 8:18:42 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/__Since Jan 3, 2004__Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NorwegianViking

So? why would that be a problem? They have to connect with the rest, or else have their own limited networks. They can have their own limited networks, all they want, anyways... Let 'em.

If that became a problem,
Fork 'em right back, faster and harder...

43 posted on 10/02/2009 8:18:45 PM PDT by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GQuagmire; NorwegianViking
Paragraphs are your friend.....

Bump!

44 posted on 10/02/2009 8:18:47 PM PDT by upchuck (New sign on my pickup: Are you a "Hope and Change" regretter?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NorwegianViking

And here comes the censorship. :)

Oh wait, I mean here comes the “civility” in debate. It’s a lot different than censorship - you just won’t be allowed to say certain things whereas under censorship you aren’t allowed to say certain things.

Any questions?


45 posted on 10/02/2009 8:21:54 PM PDT by Tzimisce (No thanks. We have enough government already. - The Tick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

Can obumber do this on his own without the congress?_____________________

The evil one will go as far as he’s allowed.


46 posted on 10/02/2009 8:23:26 PM PDT by unkus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NorwegianViking

I’m not the voice of authority on this- let me make that clear. I’m stating this based upon what I’ve read and some small personal knowledge. Do your own research.

The larger issue that I see is the problem of “international law” and regulations which hurt the US and US companies, trademarks and patents. The big money is now in “emerging” markets like China, India and other countries with little or no regulation, etc. Virtual slave labour. It’s greed like it’s always been, except now the US in on the short end of the stick. Just an opinion.


47 posted on 10/02/2009 8:25:25 PM PDT by khnyny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Will88
It’s strange that this is receiving no coverage in the US

Here are a few links for you:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/10/us-icann-internet.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574446942665685208.html
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/oct2009/gb2009102_460955.htm
http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/policy/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=220300724

Go to Google news and type ICANN in the search box. Hundreds of articles.

48 posted on 10/02/2009 8:29:53 PM PDT by upchuck (New sign on my pickup: Are you a "Hope and Change" regretter?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: NorwegianViking

The Death of the Internet.

Censorship, here we come.

But 0bummer is pro-censorship. See Office of Diversity.


49 posted on 10/02/2009 8:35:19 PM PDT by Uncle Miltie (0bummer isn't black, he's YELLOW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NorwegianViking

I am amazed at the shortsightedness of the decision makers. Horrible. Giving control of the UN to fruitcakes in grass-skirts was apparently not enough of a sign that it would be a really bad idea to relinquish control of a major asset/resource to these same people. The ability of the internet to spread the idea of freedom will be hampered by this decision.


50 posted on 10/02/2009 8:36:42 PM PDT by DilJective (High time for men of the mind to go on strike.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-172 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson